Comparison of Performance Parameters of Reactive

Abstract—Wireless Sensors are devices that monitor and

record their surroundings physical and environmental

parameters and transmit them continuously to one of the source

sensors. A collection of such wireless sensors form a network

called Wireless Sensor Networks. This technology is considered

to be the best for the study of performance parameters. Routing

is a technique which we use to select path to send traffic in the

network, also called as Protocol. AODV, DYMO, OLSR and

IERP are adhoc routing protocols. In this paper we shall study

different performance parameters in a Random Waypoint

Mobility Model by varying the number of nodes and also

changing the maximum speed of a node, such as Average

Throughput, Average End to End Delay, Average Jitter,

Average PDR (Packet Delivery Ratio) and Total Packets

Received. Analysis and performance study is done using Qualnet

6.1 simulator.

Index Terms—Mobility model, performance parameters,

qualnet, routing protocols.

I. INTRODUCTION

Wireless sensor networks (WSN) is a special class of adhoc

wireless network that are used to provide a wireless

communication infrastructure, observe and respond to

phenomena in the natural environment and in our physical and

cyber infrastructure [1]. A routing protocol is such that it

specifies how routers communicate with one another,

broadcast information that allows them to select their path

between any two given nodes on an adhoc network.

A routing protocol distribute this information first among

to its neighbours, and then to the whole of the network. In this

way, the routers achieve knowledge of the topology of the

network. An ad hoc routing protocol is a principle, or

standard, that manages how the nodes decide which way it has

to send packets between the communicating devices in the

network. Some examples of routing protocols available for

Ad- hoc networks are AODV, CGSR, DSDV, DSR, OLSR,

WRP, ZRP etc. [1]. AODV and DYMO are also known as

Reactive Protocols, whereas OLSR is a Proactive Protocol

and IERP is a Hybrid Protocol [1]. Mobility model represent

the movement of nodes and how their location, velocity and

acceleration change with respect to time. In the study of a

new Mobile ad hoc network protocol, it is important to

simulate the protocol and evaluate its protocol performance.

Manuscript received February 21, 2013; revised April 27, 2013.

The authors are with the Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture,

Technology and Sciences (SHIATS-DU), Allahabad 211007, U. P. India

(e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]).

Protocol simulation has several key parameters; including

mobility model and communicating traffic pattern Mobility

models characterize user-movement-patterns. Traffic models

describe the condition of the mobile services [2].

II. RANDOM WAYPOINT MOBILITY MODEL

Random waypoint model is a random model for the

movement of mobile users, and how their location, velocity

and acceleration change over time. Mobility models are used

for simulation purposes when new network protocols are

evaluated. The Random waypoint model was first proposed

by Johnson and Maltz [3]. It is one of the most popular

mobility models and the "benchmark" mobility model to

evaluate other Mobile ad hoc network (MANET) routing

protocols, because of its simplicity and wide availability.

In random waypoint mobility model, the nodes randomly

selects a position, moves towards it in a straight line at a

constant speed that is randomly selected from a range, and

pauses at that destination. The node repeats this, throughout

the simulation.

III. ROUTING PROTOCOLS

A lot of protocols have been designed for Ad-hoc networks

since last few years. Routing protocols are a set of rules that a

network adopts for movement of data packets in a timely and

secured fashion [4]. Broadly routing protocols are classified

into three categories: Reactive, Proactive and Hybrid.

Proactive routing protocols are table driven protocols, when

there is a need of data transfer the source node reached the

path immediately which in turn helps in minimizing the

bandwidth overhead and less time for the data packet

movement. Proactive routing protocol used in our scenario is

OLSR. Reactive protocols are on demand protocols, it finds a

path within a network only when it is necessary [5]. Reactive

protocols used in our scenario are AODV and DYMO. Hybrid

protocol includes combination of Reactive and Proactive

Routing Protocols. Hybrid protocol used in our scenario is

IERP. The details of the routing protocols are mentioned

below:

A. AODV (Adhoc on Demand Distance Vector)

Ad hoc On-demand Distance Vector Routing (AODV) [4]

protocol is an on demand routing protocol [3] as it determines

a route to the destination only when a node wants to send data

to that destination. The source node broadcasts a route request

(RREQ) packet when it wants to find path to the destination.

Comparison of Performance Parameters of Reactive,

Proactive and Hybrid Routing Protocols in RWP Mobility

Model through Qualnet

Ashish Allen Roberts and Ashish Xavier Das

Journal of Advances in Computer Network, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 2013

234DOI: 10.7763/JACN.2013.V1.46

The neighbors in turn broadcast the packet to their neighbors

until it reaches a transitional node that has recent route

information about the destination or until it reaches the

destination A node records the node from which request

packet received first to erect the reverse path for route reply to

source node. As the route reply packet traverses back to the

source, the nodes along the path enter the forward route into

their tables. Due to the mobile nature of nodes, route

maintenance is required. If the source moves then it can

reinitiate route discovery to the destination. If one of the

intermediate nodes move then moved nodes neighbor realizes

the link failure and sends a link failure notification to its

upstream neighbors and so on until it reaches the source upon

which the source can reinitiate route discovery if needed.

AODV [6] has greatly reduced the number of routing

messages in the network.

B. DYMO (Dynamic Mannet on Demand)

Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) routing protocol

enables reactive, multi-hop unicast routing between

participating DYMO routers. DYMO operation is split into

route discovery and route maintenance. Routes are discovered

on- demand when the originator initiates hop-by-hop

distribution of a RREQ (rout request) message throughout the

network to find a route to the target, currently not in its routing

table. This RREQ message is swamped in the network using

broadcast and the packet reaches its destination. The target

then sends a RREP (route reply) to the source. Upon receiving

the RREP message by the source, routes have been

established between the two nodes. For maintenance of routes

which are in use, routers elongate route lifetimes upon

successfully forwarding a packet. In order to react to

changes in the network topology, routers monitor links

over which traffic is flowing [4]. DYMO uses sequence

numbers to ensure loop freedom and enable them to

determine the order of DYMO route discovery messages,

thus avoiding use of outdated routing information [7].

C. OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing)

Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) is a proactive

MANET routing protocol. Unlike DSDV and AODV, OLSR

reduces the number of retransmissions by providing optimal

routes in terms of number of hops. Only the MPRs of a node

retransmit its broadcast messages, hence no extra control

traffic is generated in response to link failures. OLSR is

particularly suitable for large and dense networks. The path

from source to destination consists of a sequence of hops

through the MPRs. In OLSR, a HELLO message is

broadcasted to all of its neighbors containing information

about its neighbors and their link status and received by the

nodes which are one hop away but they are not passed on to

further nodes [4]. In response of HELLO messages, each

node would construct its MPR Selector table. MPRs of a

given node are declared in the subsequent HELLO messages

transmitted by this node

D. IERP (Interzone Routing Protocol)

Interzone Routing Protocol (IERP), the reactive routing

component of the Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP). IERP adapts

existing reactive routing protocol implementations to take

advantage of the known topology of each node’s surrounding

r-hop neighborhood (routing zone), provided by the Intrazone

Routing Protocol (IARP). The availability of routing zone

routes allows IERP to suppress route queries for local

destinations [8]. When a global route discovery is required,

the routing zone based bordercast service can be used

to efficiently guide route queries outward, rather than blindly

relaying queries from neighbor to neighbor.

IV. SCENARIO

The simulator used to record the performance parameters is

Qualnet 6.1 developed by SCALABLE Network

Technologies. In the Architecture mode of the simulator the

scenario is designed in an area of 360000 square meters.

Number of nodes is kept as 20. Network traffic type is chosen

as CBR (Constant Bit Rate) type, we have used 2 CBRs,

where 1 CBR connects 2 nodes. The time for which the

simulation is performed is 600 seconds. The node mobility

model is set up as Random Waypoint Mobility, and further the

minimum speed of the nodes at which they move randomly is

set as 1m/s and maximum speed of the nodes is set as 20m/s,

this, and the pause time is set as 30ms. A total of 100 data

packets are sent over the 2 CBR traffic with an individual

payload of 512 bytes. Initially the routing protocol is set as

AODV and the option of add to batch is used to compare this

simulation data with other routing protocols, DYMO, OLSR

and IERP (see Table I).

TABLE I: SCENARIO DESCRIPTION

PARAMETERS VALUES

Simulator QUALNET 6.1

Protocols studied AODV,DYMO,OLSR & IERP

Number of nodes 20 nodes

Simulation time 600 s

Simulation area 600*600 sq m

Node movement model Random waypoint mobility

Traffic types 2 CBR sources

Mobility of nodes Min speed=1m/s ,Max speed=10m/s

Below are the screenshots from the Qualnet simulator

when the above mentioned scenario is designed in the

architect mode and before the results are analyzed through the

analyzer, the Qualnet software runs the experiment.

Fig. 1. 3D view of scenario simulation in Qualnet.


235

Fig. 2. X-Y view of simulation setup.

Fig. 3. Broadcasting and network setup of protocols.

Fig. 4. Random waypoint mobility and CBR connections.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Throughput

In a mobile or data communication network throughput is

the average rate of successful message delivery in a

communication channel. This data may be delivered over a

physical or logical link, or pass through a certain network

node. The throughput is usually measured in bits per second

(bit/s or bps), and sometimes in data packets per second or

data packets per time slot. [3], [4]. Better the throughput

better will be the communication system. Here the graph

shows that we have a better throughput in DYMO and AODV

in comparison to OLSR and IERP. In routing protocols

DYMO and AODV, the performance parameter: throughput

exhibits better results due to its path finding techniques, which

uses the least and secure path in its network as compared to

the other routing protocols OLSR and IERP.

Fig. 5. Throughput

B. End to End Delay

Fig. 6. End to end delay.

End to end delay refers to the time taken for a packet to

be transmitted across a network from source to

destination. Usually a data packet may take few extra second

to reach the client or the server’s end, which happens due to

congestion in the communication network in the situation of

a queue or when different routing paths are chosen by the

routing protocol [9]. The graph below shows the end to end

delay is greatest in IERP as compared to the others which are

very small.

C. Jitter

Jitter is the variation in delay by different data packets that

reached the destination and can seriously affect the quality of

audio/video and thus an unwanted parameter [10]. Here we

can see that the average jitter is fairly high in the case of IERP,

then, it is DYMO, AODV [8] and least is in the case of

OLSR.

Fig. 7. JITTER.

D. Packet Delivery Ratio

Packet delivery ratio is the fraction of packets sent by

source that are received by the destination and is calculated

by dividing the number of packets received by the


236

destination through the number of packets originated by the

application layer of the source [11]. Its higher value indicates

good performance of the protocol. The graph below shows the

best PDR is in the case of AODV and DYMO as compared

to OLSR and IERP.

Fig. 8. Packet delivery ratio.

E. Total Number of Packets Received

Total number of packets received at the destination. Its

count tells us the total number of packets received out of total

number of packets sent, in this case 100 data packets were

sent. The graph shows the best protocol to deliver the data

packets to the destination are AODV and DYMO in

comparison to OLSR and IERP.

Fig. 9. Total packets received.

VI. CONCLUSION

The above results give us a combine and comparative study

of three types of protocols namely: Reactive, Proactive and

Hybrid. Reactive protocols being: AODV and DYMO. OLSR

(proactive protocol) and IERP (hybrid protocol) [12]. Here

we can see that the reactive protocols are best in throughput,

PDR and total packets received. While comparing the results

of AODV and DYMO communication routing protocols

individually, DYMO comes out to be the better one. Hybrid

protocol IERP has high end to end delay and jitter values and

the proactive protocol, OLSR stays second in the above

mentioned performance parameters.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Mittal and P. Kaur, “Performance comparison of AODV, DSR and

ZRP routing protocols in MANET’s,” in Proc. 09 International

Conference on Advances in Computing, Control and

Telecommunication Technologies, IEEE 2009.

[2] D. Oliver and Jorg, “Performance comparison of MANET routing

Protocols in different network sizes,” Institute of computer Science and

applied mathematics computer Networks and distributed systems

University of Berne, Switzerland IAM RVS February 2004 computer

science projects.

[3] I. Chakeres and C. Perkins, Dynamic MANET on demand (DYMO)

routing protocol, Internet- Draft Version 06, IETF, October 2006.

[4] E. Royer and C. Toh, “A review of current routing protocols for Ad-

hoc mobile wireless networks,” IEEE Personal Communications, vol.

6, issue 2, pp. 46-55, April 1999.

[5] B. Ahmed, M. Islam, and J. Rahman, “Simmulation, analysis and

performance comparison among different routing protocols for

wireless sensor networks,” Computer Engineering and Intelligent

Systems, ISSN 2222-1719, vol. 2, no. 4, 2011.

[6] Z. Haas, M. Pearlman, and P. Samar, “The interzone routing protocol

(ierp) for ad hoc networks,” draft-ietf-manet-zone-ierp-01.txt

[7] K. Navidi, W. Camp, and W. Patterson, “Discovering variables that

affect MANET protocol performance,” in Proc. GLOBECOM '07,

IEEE Publication Date: 26-30 Nov. 2007.

[8] V. Thapar, B. Jain, and V. Sahni, “Routing protocols using random

waypoint mobility model in wireless sensor networks,” International

Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 3059,

August 2011.

[9] P. Goyal, S. Vijay, and D. Jhariya, “Simulation and Performance

Analysis of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Network using

Qualnet,” International Journal of Computer Application, vol. 52, no.

2, August 2012.

[10] N. Bisht, R. Mishra, and R. Dhillon, “Mobility based performance

analysis of wireless sensor networks,” International Journal of

Computer, Electronics & Electrical Engineering, vol. 2, issue 2.

[11] P. Nand and S. Sharma, “Routing load analysis of broadcast based

reactive routing protocols AODV, DSR and DYMO for MANET,”

International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing, vol. 4, no. 1,

pp. 81-92, March 2011.

[12] M. Amin, M. Abrar, Z. Khan, Abdusalam, and S. Rizwan,

“Comparison of OLSR & DYMO routing protocols on the basis of

different performance metrics in mobile Ad-hoc networks,”

American Journal of Scientific Research, issue 37, pp. 34-57, 2011.

Ashish Allen Roberts is a research scholar and

pursuing his M.Tech. Degree in Communication

System Engg. in the department of Electronics &

Communication Engg., SHIATS-DU, Allahabad. His

present research area is Wireless Communication &

Sensor Networks.

Ashish Xavier Das is a PhD Scholar in Electronics and

Communication Engineering SHIATS-DU, Allahabad.

He received his B.Tech. degree from AAIDU,

Allahabad and M.Tech from SHIATS-DU, Allahabad.

His research is focused on Routing Protocols in WSN.


237

Documents

Comparison of Performance Parameters of Reactive